What is the universe? Is the universe just a nominal device to refer to the sum of all physical things, similar to the way “team” does not refer to an actual thing but merely to the sum of all players, or does “universe” refer to something above and beyond the sum of all physical things?
May 20, 2010
Thinking to Believe 
May 21, 2010 at 2:19 am
Well, I tend to start at the fundamental, literal level first and extrapolate from there, so, here goes:
Universe comes from Latin, and literally means “turned into one”. It is a compound word, uni + versus, with uni arriving from unus, meaning one, and versus being the past participle of the verb vertere, meaning to turn.
Secondly, one would have to decide what they believe to be the true ontology of the universe: is it eternal or temporal, infinite or finite? Does it have substance? is it alive, sentient, etc?
Personally, I believe the universe is both temporal and finite. As such, it has limits. If so, then somewhere, beyond the scope of human understanding, there is an edge, or a point at which the universe stops existing. It’s hard to fathom, given its immensity, but no less true, in my opinion.
So, the universe is spatially finite, and temporally limited (has a beginning and an ending). This, then, locates it within a greater context of both time and space, for, what then is outside of the universe spatially speaking, and what then existed before the universe and what will also exist afterward?
That is the greater context. I would then say that the universe is best understood or defined through it’s relationship with that greater context. To do less seems to be subjective, as we then only understand and define the universe based on our relationship to it or perhaps to itself.
What’s more, since it it neither eternal, nor infinite, another question arises:
Did its existence come about naturally (i.e. as an outgrowth or various phenomenon which logically formed itself into the universe, with no sentience), creatively (i.e. it was formed and created by the active intelligence of some agent or another), or accidentally (i.e. neither the product of natural phenomenom nor the act of a creator)?
I say it was created. Therefore, the greater context I mentioned must also include the agent responsible for its creation. What is the context of the agent and its relationship to its creation?
This helps to further define the universe from the perspective of that which initialized and maintains its existence, and also possibly what will, at the time of the end, directly or indirectly cause its cessation.
I don’t believe the universe is alive, neither sentient, although within it, life and sentience both exist, but life and sentience exist as substrata, and do not make up or equal the whole.
Does the universe has substance? I’m not sure. There is an amazing amount of material substance in the universe, and yet, like life and sentience, it doesn’t equate to the universe existing substantially in any form. It does, however, appear to have laws and structure, but even those seem intangible.
I realize I didn’t really answer the question, but I don’t really have an answer right now, just some fodder to get the mind thinking.
As far as the team metaphor goes, somehow I find that lacking, though I’m not sure why. I will have to think more about it, too.
A final question is one of teleology. Is there a teleological purpose to the existence of the universe, and if so, what is it and how does it affect the definition of what the universe is?
LikeLike
May 22, 2010 at 6:41 am
Pure matter and energy. 85-95% of it is not even certain to mankind yet (i.e. dark energy/matter). I think it is that which exists as the Divine mind sustains and supports it into reality.
LikeLike
May 22, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Gentlemen,
I agree with what you have said, but you’re answering questions I didn’t raise. 🙂 All I am asking is what you think the “universe” refers to. Does it refer to a particular entity, or is it just a short-hand way of referring to the sum of all physical reality? I tend to think the “universe” is not a thing in itself, but just a way of referring to the sum of all physical reality, just like “team” does not refer to any physical entity, but rather the sum (group) of entities. Would you agree? If not, why not?
Jason
LikeLike
May 23, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Well, I guess I would call it a system or network.
I do not know if it is the sum of all physical reality, because, should the universe be finite, then something else outside of it exists, and that may be physical, as well, in the human sense of the word.
Entity works in the purely “noun” sense of the word, but not if it means having life-like, or anthorpomorphic connotations.
So, I guess I would say the universe is the structural framework whereby all systems, both organic and inorganic, and spiritual, exist and function. As such it is an entity, but only insomuch as it is a means to to an end.
Maybe I would compare it to the grey matter of the brain. The grey matter allows for the existence and function of the mind, but is by no means the mind itself. In the same way, the universe allows for the existence and function of all systems, but is not the systems themselves. In this way, the team metaphor may work.
(I suppose you are getting at something more profound???)
LikeLike
May 24, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Aaron,
I think it goes without saying that the universe is physical, so to speak of the possibility of something physical existing beyond the universe de facto puts you in the camp of thinking the universe to be an actual entity that one can point to in reality, rather than just a short-hand way of referring to all physical reality. As an individual who thinks the “universe” is just a label referring to the sum of physical reality, I would not allow for anything physical to exist beyond the universe. Only an immaterial reality could exist beyond the universe.
No, I really am not getting at anything profound. It just always seemed obvious to me that “universe” referred to the sum of physical reality, not an entity in itself, until recently when I saw that some use the term to refer to an entity. So I was just curious about how readers of this blog use the term, and why.
Jason
LikeLike
May 26, 2010 at 12:42 am
Well, from our side of things, then yes, the universe may be described as the sum of all physical existence. A caveat, however. There is more than physical existence existing in the universe, so, while universe may sum up that which is physical, it doesn’t totally encompass all that is spiritual or immaterial.
Secondly, going back to that greater context I mentioned, from a position outside of this temporal, finite universe, I would say that if the universe could be looked at from that vantage point, then it would appear more like an entity, since it would be a contained, perhaps even isolated creation/system, and not so much just a by-word for the sum of all physical existence.
Although, if nothing physical exists outside of this universe, then, to view it from that context would be to see it as the only creation/system containing physicality, for lack of a better word, and therefore might be construed as the sum.
LikeLike
June 3, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Aaron,
I know what you mean when you speak of a “position outside of this temporal, finite universe,” but strictly speaking there can be no such thing because “outside” is a spatial concept, and there is no space transcendent to space.
While it may not be possible to avoid the image, it is wrong to think of God looking down on the universe as though it is some self-contained bubble existing in some kind of dark hyper-space, for this presupposes that space is existing within some other kind of space. I don’t know exactly what the universe looks like from the vantage point of a being whose existence transcends space, but for it to look like a well-defined entity presupposes it has spatial borders that are visible to God from within some larger spatial borders. But if the universe is the sum of all space, would the universe really look like a well-defined entity from God’s vantage point, or would He just see the same thing that we would see if we were capable of viewing every spatial point simultaneously: the sum of all physical existence?
Jason
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 6:38 am
The Universe is quite ambiguous in its definition, and its classification changes all the time, but…technically, in a strictly astrophysical sense the Universe is observed to be 13.7 billion years old (via Hubble’s Law). We also know that the fastest anything can travel is the speed of light. So the Universe is defined as a region of space with all matter and radiation, a region roughly 92 billion light years across.
LikeLike